This has been an ongoing marketing ploy for years. Hype new AI model only to find out it is at best only marginally better than previous iteration.

So you have no data or evidence to support your conclusions and your "use effectively" criteria is simply begging the question? After all a tool you can't use effectively sucks and one that can be used effectively doesn't? Right?

The context of the commencement speech is the future rather than the present. If in the future AI takes jobs why would the taking of jobs not also include taking of gained jobs?

How do you even know what they bothered to learn?

Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?

This speaker is annoying. Gratuitous heaping of praise on Bozos. Glorifying tech bro style fearless disruption idiocy. Passive aggressive responses to audience.

My favorite was "only a few years ago AI was not a factor in our lives" being met with cheers. Fucking priceless.

"We have been through this before, these industrial revolutions" no actually this is inductive fantasy that ignores underpinning reality. There can be no new opportunities for anyone when dead labor is *also* able to fill any and all new roles as effectively as people. When AI is like importing an alien from another planet that can do everything you can do but better and for free there are no new opportunities for anyone.

LOL while there is still no credible evidence of double taps I had joked about assertions of triple taps previously. Funny as shit to see people reaching for it now because hell why not. Heck just make it a quadruple tap just to be safe. Everything is much easier once one frees themselves from the burdensome chains of reality.

While there is also no credible evidence for this why not just go with it anyway? The New York Times claims to have spoken with people with relevant knowledge who said it was a targeting mistake caused by outdated information but they could just be wrong or lying.

Iran has obviously been deliberately working toward a breakout capability. This is evidenced by self declared 60% enrichment (post US JCPOA violation) level (observed 83% levels), massive proliferation of centrifuges in underground facilities and parallel development of nuclear capable ballistic missiles at scale. Since war broke out there have been public admissions of pre-war intent for nuclear capability from within the regime itself.

The arguments are in differentiation between developing a capability that enables future production of nukes and walking a path intentionally engineered to be as short as possible to actually producing nukes.
As time went on this path shrinks while cost to prevent breakout by force increases. Arguments staking opposing perspectives increasingly become the province of pointless pedantry and word games.

Trump was certainly reckless to violate the JCPOA which capped enrichment to less than 4% until 2030. It is certainly possible a new deal could have been reached to extend the cap and allow more time to work to change of regime behavior. Now it is too late for that and we all have to live with the world as it is not as it should have been.

We've had AI slop reports in a project I contribute to. The first one we got was a security vulnerability report, "you're not protecting against X, you need to apply countermeasures", and then listed the recommended countermeasures, which was a rephrased copy of the list of countermeasures that we were already applying.

Things haven't improved since then, the only real change is that it's now a lot harder to pick holes in the slop than it was for that first one because the slop extruders are getting better at obfuscation.

Not your bro.

They literally don't.

Why is it very bad?

Awe... how sweet.

Imagine if any of this had anything to do with my remarks...

Israel is not an apartheid state although they have some funky crap on the margins around garbage like right of return and military service. While America is obviously not waging war against civilians in Iran the regime itself is most certainly doing exactly that.

I think there is an excellent case to be made the war was illegal. Declarations of war are explicitly an article 1 authority and while war powers act delegates some temporary authority to the president there was no imminent risk as required by law. I don't agree you can just decide to not call waging war a war to sidestep the constitution or just assert imminence where none existed.

If a foreign invader attacked a normal country this analogy would be apt. In the case of Iran the regime is an oppressive mafia state widely hated by the vast majority of its population.

A more accurate analogy is to imagine your country has been taken over by an oppressive invader that just massacred tens of thousands of your own people. Now imagine your allies swoop in and attack those who are oppressing you. Most Iranians were actually cheering the death and destruction of their oppressors not the other way around.

As far as I understand it weapons were provided to Iraqi Kurds in the hope they would pass them to Iran yet that obviously flopped. Hopefully other efforts are working out better.

Given the Iranian regime has just attacked most Arab states in the region and continues to threaten Arab interests with its games in Hormuz relations between Israel and Arab states are only improving while relations between the Arab states and Iran crater. Israel just delivered iron dome to UAE at the same time you are asserting they want to destroy them.

No, they are the exact same thing merely managed differently and authenticated at a different layer. The security properties of passkeys are inferior to client certs due to the lack of channel binding.

You have to wonder why he bothers though, I mean he's taking ten to hundred million dollar bribes, why does he care about a few hundred dollars? Or is it a case of every grift is a good grift?

Does a robot have the Buddha nature?

Also, are prayer wheels still effective if you hook them up to electric motors?

My definition of consciousness is irrelevant. If there is a dependency of determinism on your particular definition of consciousness you should be able to explain what that dependency is and why it is necessary. I am NOT the one making assertions about determinism and consciousness. I have no duty to provide anything.

So why are you wasting my time by demanding that I provide YOU with a definition when you are the one making the claims?

Nondeterminism for the context of this discussion is when it is physically impossible to predict the output of a system from its inputs in advance.

If you execute an LLM using a PRNG with a known seed value the output of the LLM is deterministic.

If you execute an LLM using a hardware random source based on thermal noise the output of the LLM is nondeterministic.

This isn't rocket science. Still the same question remains WTF does determinism have to do with consciousness?

Consciousness != determinism. Unless you are arguing consciousness is the same thing as determinism you should be able to explain WTF the relationship between the two even is and what the relevance of determinism is WRT consciousness.

Green is a color
Red is a different color
Red is not green.
Green is not red.

Consciousness is a concept.
Determinism is a different concept.

Consciousness is not determinism
Determinism is not consciousness

I am asking for an explanation of assertions related to determinism and consciousness that someone else made. These claims were not made by me. I have no duty to provide any definition of anything. I'm asking for information not quibbling over definitions.

Both methods suffer from the same issues of offline attack.

Passwords are a concept just as PKI is a concept. Both require implementation to exist in the real world. In the case of passwords an example of an implementation is strcmp or a ZKP like TLS-SRP. In the case of PKI examples are client certs or their poorly re-implemented cousin passkeys.